HRY PRELIMS 2018 Set A
You'll attempt 10 questions with instant scoring and explanations at the end. (115 more in the full paper.)
Sample questions from HRY PRELIMS 2018 Set A
The first 10 questions of this Haryana Judiciary (HCS-JB) Prelims paper, with answers and explanations.
Q1. The calling of at least one attesting witness to prove a document under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act is not necessary
- A. when the document other than a Will is registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908
- B. when the document including Will is registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908
- C. when the document irrespective of whether it is a Will, is registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908
- D. both (A) & (C) are correct
Reveal answer
Answer: A — when the document other than a Will is registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908
The proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 dispenses with the need to call an attesting witness where a document (other than a Will) is registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908. A Will always requires proof of attestation regardless of registration.
Q2. Which statement is true in relation to a child witness?
- A. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto
- B. A child witness may be easy prey of tutoring and when it is established that he is under the influence of tutoring it is not safe to solely rely on his evidence
- C. The law recognizes the child as a competent witness but a child of a tender age of six years is not considered by the Court to be a witness whose sole testimony can be relied without other corroborative evidence
- D. All above statements are true
Reveal answer
Answer: D — All above statements are true
Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes every person competent to testify unless the court considers they are prevented from understanding or rationally answering questions - all three statements about child witnesses correctly reflect settled judicial practice on this point.
Q3. Under Section 145 of Evidence Act, a witness may be contradicted as to previous statement in writing
- A. without proving the same but only after showing the same to the witness
- B. after proving the same may be before showing the same to the witness
- C. after proving the same & showing the same to the witness
- D. without proving the same and without showing the same to the witness
Reveal answer
Answer: A — without proving the same but only after showing the same to the witness
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits a witness to be cross-examined about a previous statement in writing without it being proved, but if it is intended to contradict him with it, his attention must first be called to those parts to be used for contradiction, before it is proved.
Q4. The Narco-Analysis technique involves the intravenous administration of
- A. Sodium Pentothal
- B. Potassium Pentothal
- C. Magnesium Pentothal
- D. All of the above
Reveal answer
Answer: A — Sodium Pentothal
Narco-analysis involves the intravenous administration of Sodium Pentothal (a barbiturate), which lowers inhibitions and is claimed to induce a hypnotic/semi-conscious state facilitating disclosure.
Q5. The evidence unearthed by the sniffer dog falls under
- A. oral evidence
- B. documentary evidence
- C. hearsay evidence
- D. scientific evidence
Reveal answer
Answer: C — hearsay evidence
Courts have generally treated tracker/sniffer dog evidence as inherently weak and akin to hearsay - it reflects the dog handler's interpretation of the animal's behaviour rather than a direct account of a fact perceived by a human witness, and is not treated as substantive scientific evidence on its own (see discussion in Sucha Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 284 and Dinesh Borthakur v. State of Assam, (2008) 5 SCC 697).
Q6. A non-testamentary document is one
- A. Which is intended to take effect or be operative immediately on its execution
- B. Which is final
- C. Which is irrevocable
- D. All the above
- E. Which is revocable
Reveal answer
Answer: D — All the above
A testamentary document (a Will) is intended to take effect only after death, is not final during the testator's lifetime, and is revocable. A non-testamentary document, by contrast, is one intended to operate immediately on execution, is final, and is irrevocable - all three characteristics in option (D) apply.
Q7. What is the effect of opinion of the experts upon the court?
- A. Binding on the judge
- B. Only advisory in nature
- C. The judge can form an opinion contrary to that of expert
- D. Both (B) & (C)
- E. None of the above
Reveal answer
Answer: D — Both (B) & (C)
Under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, expert opinion is only advisory/corroborative in nature and not binding; the court may, on assessing the evidence as a whole, form a conclusion at variance with the expert's opinion.
Q8. Use of violence by a member of unlawful assembly, in furtherance of their common object will constitute offence of
- A. Assault
- B. Rioting
- C. Affray
- D. All of the above
- E. None of the above
Reveal answer
Answer: B — Rioting
Section 146 IPC (read with Section 141 IPC) defines 'rioting' as the use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly, or any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly.
Q9. A is arrested by police and accused of murder of B. During investigation A voluntarily agrees to undergo narco analysis and therein he confesses to have murdered B.
- A. The confession is relevant and can be sole basis of conviction
- B. The confession is irrelevant
- C. The confession is relevant but requires corroboration
- D. Only that much of A's statement can be used as leads to discovery of a fact
- E. None of the above
Reveal answer
Answer: D — Only that much of A's statement can be used as leads to discovery of a fact
A confession made to police (including one elicited via narco-analysis while in custody) is generally inadmissible; however, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (an exception to Sections 25-26), only so much of the information as distinctly leads to the discovery of a fact can be proved, regardless of whether it amounts to a confession.
Q10. The general rule is that leading questions cannot be asked during examination in chief. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. Choose the exceptions:
- A. any question at the discretion of judge
- B. as to matters which are introductory or undisputed
- C. as to matters which have already been sufficiently proved
- D. Both (B) & (C)
- E. None of the above
Reveal answer
Answer: D — Both (B) & (C)
Section 143 read with Section 142 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits leading questions in examination-in-chief (with the court's permission) as to matters that are introductory or undisputed, or that have, in the court's opinion, already been sufficiently proved.
Want the full paper? Create a free account or see premium plans.